England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		16 December 2015

THE DEPUTY JUDGE:

1. The Nursing and Midwifery Council seeks an extension of the interim suspension order made against the respondent under Article 31(2) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 suspending her registration as a nurse, initially made by the Practice Committee of the Council on 3 December 2013 for a period of 12 months. The order was made on the basis that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was otherwise in the public interest. That order had since been reviewed and extended on a number of occasions, most recently on 17 September of this year, and is due to expire on 17 December, which is tomorrow.
2. The application is made under Article 31(8) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order. The substantive hearing of the case before the Health Committee began on 22 October of this year but could not be concluded within the time allotted and so was adjourned part heard. An extension of four months is sought in order that the Council may complete the proceedings which is scheduled for 21 to 22 January 2016. Then the committee will consider the remaining issues, the facts having been admitted, of impairment and, if necessary, sanction. The Council considers that a further period of suspension of four months presents a realistic period to conclude the proceedings.
3. The proper approach for the court dealing with an application of this sort is set out in the Court of Appeal's decision in General Medical Council v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. Although that case was concerned with a different disciplinary regime, its approach is applicable here. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account such matters as the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case has not been concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued.
4. I must consider all the evidence and be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Council has established that the criteria, namely the protection of the public and the public interest, justify an extension of the interim suspension order.
5. The essential facts are set out in the witness statement dated 8 December of Lloyd Emeny of the Council and the exhibits thereto.
6. First, the misconduct allegations made against the respondent are serious and create potential risks to the patients. They are that the respondent stole medication, Zopiclone tablets, for her own personal use from hospital, where she was employed.
7. Further, the respondent's health condition creates a risk affecting her clinical judgment and ability to work as a professional. The respondent was at the time drinking up to 50 units of alcohol per week and in the course of the proceedings before the Health Committee has admitted that she continues to be alcohol dependent.
8. Secondly, the matter was referred to the Council by the Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust on 3 December 2013. The interim order was initially made on 3 December 2013. The Council accepts there have been delays. The chronology of events and explanation of delays is set out in Lloyd Emeny's witness statement and exhibit one. However, the respondent failed to fully engage with the proceedings by failing to attend various assessments. Further, the Conduct and Competence Committee, initially dealing with the matter, transferred the case to the Health Committee when it became clear that health issues were raised in March 2015. Whilst I have some hesitation, given the time that has passed -- and this is the fourth time since December 2014 that the court has been asked to extend the order -- I accept that efforts to progress the proceedings have been made and that the proceedings are near completion.
9. Thirdly, whilst the extension of the order has the potential to cause the respondent some prejudice, no actual prejudice has been identified by her. I bear in mind the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession while the proceedings continue in relation to allegations of this nature made against a nurse.
10. Fourthly, whilst the respondent has not been in a position to sign the relevant consent to agree to this extension, in an email from the respondent in response to an email from the Council dated 14 December 2015, the respondent indicates that she is not able to sign the form but does consent to the application to extend the interim order in the proceedings today.
11. Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that an extension of the interim suspension order is necessary for the protection of the public and is otherwise in the public interest. An extension of four months is appropriate, albeit that it is the fourth time in order to complete the proceedings which are near completion. I therefore extend the interim suspension order to 17 April 2016. I also approve the draft order handed up by Ms Hall.